tv [untitled] March 10, 2012 8:30am-9:00am PST
preschools serve at least 25% low income families and also accept vouchers. this is the first time we have ever done that. 83% of kindergartners have been enrolled in preschool, that is about a 10% increase over the last three years. supervisor farrell: a lot of this compares against other cities -- >> we are the highest personal enrollment in the state of california. our statistics are really good. supervisor farrell: you have one of the in three different sites, these are existing school district sites? can you talk a little bit more about that? >> aledo of them on existing si
-- a lot of them are on existing sites. but we have also developed new sites as well. you have been watching very carefully. they're attending preschool and more just and are going to kindergarten. supervisor farrell: i know you have to take off, but thank you for being here. next, from the san francisco unified school district.
10% of special education. just under 20% are listed as gifted and talented. we have over 60% free reduced lunch population. we have an average tenure of 12 years for our teachers. we are a good representation of the diversity of san francisco. there are the huge populations that we serve. some of the big issues that have come up in some ways earlier today, if we first looked at enrollment, we talked about how there has been a decline, very caused -- a decline. very positive recent trends, though.
the overall population has plateaued, but we're seeing a growth in the kindergarten age population. we think there is great recognition of the work we are doing. we put it out there as the perceptions, we think there is a big difference in what is perceived as public education and what the reality is. we expect that we will see that also continue at the second grade level at 2015. supervisor farrell: do you have any data on public schools, private schools in the city? do you have data among children or within the age group, which
ones are going to those buckets? >> roughly 70% are entertaining public schools. supervisor farrell: the cost of other private schools, if you call them independence, they are very expensive and our city. the recent economic recession, i know a lot of families that originally could not make it work. >> in terms of revealing the decision, i don't have the data,
because of their options were too expensive. when we surveyed families that are part of us, that is within the presentation today. >> i know that everyone in the public-school system is a big perception issue. supervisor avalos: i hear the opposite, that a lot of families want their kids to come to public schools and when they don't get the public school they want, is when they -- there are six public elementary schools. i think the first inclination
is public schools first. i'd think we are seeing an increase in enrollment. we see a lot of families because they want to invest in what is provided for equally. it is really great to see that there is the kind of affirmation. >> i think you had a half a dozen schools where they had to turn people away. that is getting close to 20. >> this seems to cut a little
bit against the the data that is being shown. we are seeing an increase in kindergarten applications that i don't think anyone can deny. at the same time, it is going down. >> i thought that we are seeing the population increase iing -- it was flat, ok. president chiu: demographers predicted increase in the secondary level, is that a very real increase you are seeing in those numbers? >> which has continued to to move through our elementary schools. that trend is continuing on the
path toward the secondary level. president chiu: it is almost to reverse the family flight trend we're seeing. >> it is countering the trend, yes. when we talk about family fight overall -- flight overall. i know one issue that has been in the news lately has been about the redesign of the student assignment process. one issue of controversy, there are a lot of misperceptions and questions that have been raised about it. the choice-based enrollment system, is not like most districts where you go to your neighborhood and it is automatically based on where you live. what we find is that 84% of the
families receive one of their choices. what is important to note is that of those choices that they make, less than 25% desire a neighborhood school. what we try to do is strike a balance between the desire for a neighborhood school versus choices present throughout the city. striking that balance -- i think it was an extensive and exhaustive process, an enormous amount of listening to parents. that is what went into place this year. to understand the achievement trend, we are the highest performing an urban school district in california. our api is 796.
for perspective, 800 is considered where you want to be. that's up from 755. we have one of the lowest dropout rates at 12.8% compared to a statewide average. long beach is at 16.6%. l.a. is 24%. our african-american, latino, and some oil and students are performing below their white and asian peters -- samoan students are performing below their white and asian peers. there is a lot to talk about what is going on in sfusd.
the pathway programs, if california is not the country -- we have 231 national born certified teachers. if you are not familiar with certification, it is a level of professionalism that was launched about 15 years ago, the side of the elevator level of teaching the same way that a lawyer passes the bar exam or a doctor passes his or her certified medical exams. the nationwide average, we have one of the best represented cities in america for this category. our well as programs, libraries, art, music.
the last three funded by the richmond funds. and the quality teacher education act of 2008. this was a parcel tax passed by the citizens of san francisco. nearly 70% of the vote providing heads of salaries to our teachers, designed to make this our teaching work force. supervisor farrell, i referenced the family satisfaction survey. i don't have the total number of families involved, but 96% of the families say that their child enjoys going to school. a 93% say that they are going to a nurturing environment. 91% would recommend the schools to other parents, at 90% says that the child says that they love the school. what they want to talk about --
lastly, what i want to talk about is a model city district partnership. and this is what -- this is one of the most exciting aspects of having us here today. the city takes an active role in its students. even though we have a low population of students and a lower than average concentration in public schools, the city cares about the public school students. the kindergarten to college program by cisneros. to provide accoutnnts for students to be able to save for college. the rainy day fund. the education richmond fund. a host of other programs have been critical.
the mission promised in neighborhood grant, but the district was a huge part of that. we have seen huge differences in the bay view and mission neighborhoods. it was launched earlier from the leningrad and has now been extended, and now being continued. supervisor farrell, as you're aware, the playground initiative where we increased the amount of open space and see our schools as assets. supervisor farrell: all right, so thank you for the comments
and slides. any questions? my only comment is, it is by all accounts, statistically, the public-school system is doing extremely well. from everything i hear from parents, they love that. maybe there is a perception problem if they continue to list the education system as a reason to leave. what can we do here in city hall? i think part of the issue of the board of supervisors is that there is a separate board of education, the what can we do to hell? -- to help? getting that message out there is a really big deal. maybe we aren't as engaged as we should be, but what can we be doing as supervisors to make that happen? >> supervisor farrell, you're starting it right today.
the efforts we are seeing over the past five years have been instrumental. i don't think we have this level of partnership and to requirement -- and requirement from 15 years ago. that is why i was very grateful and the superintendent was very grateful to be able to be here. we can work for ways that we can cooperate and share a playground, for example. how we get the word out, it is a slow process. i don't think there is just a silver bullet that we can just come on land. i think it is an evolutionary process that began years ago. supervisor avalos: just to say i'm sure all of the members of the board of supervisors actively take part in events
that happened in schools and our district, - -in -- in our district. i have been at lots of school- sponsored events at the high school, the institute of technology, cleveland elementary school. the opportunity that we take doing the reading, we had a time capsule 100 years ago where it was opened and a great event. there are great ways that we can provide our connection to city resources, or just our name to support the school district. i think it makes a big difference. last year, i was very troubled that we had a very active discourse happening in san francisco. i think the mayor's race had been a big part of that. they were talking about the
neighborhood school initiative. they did not talk about the financing system, they call that the lottery system. that is a very loaded term, so the way that we talk about the school's, the language provided for the discourse is almost hostile toward the policies we are trying to implement in the school district. a candidate put several thousand dollars forward for an initiative. there are many ways that the school district -- not in a vicious way, but at a mile away, it was under attack. a lot of this course happened last year about a family fight linked to that as well. i can't stay the whole time at the hearing and i apologize for that, but i think it is right that we are focusing on this.
i also want to make sure that we can focus on it is clear language as we can, looking at what other assets we have and the city to help support families that are here. i think it is important that we are conscious about how we can share what is working and how we can improve the work we are doing enclosed some of the gaps that are there. i think we want to be clear about how we can talk in a most positive light despite people having difficult experiences. there is a lot we can focus on that is positive moving forward. >> next, we have mayor's office of housing, brian chiu is here to talk about what we are doing. >> i have a power point
presentation, i will be able to get that to you electronically. all right. loaded in here. i think we are good ago. -- good to go. if sf gov tv can switch it to powerpoint, that'd be great. all right. ok. so today, we're going to talk about a few things, setting some of the demographic information that was referenced previously.
we will focus specifically on households, the income of households, and how many families are in the income ranges. we will talk about the overall housing market of san francisco including rental, ownership, regional dynamics of the crash, and we will end up speaking more about how housing is done. if this is created through direct development, through the inclusion reprogram. and we will talk about what the future holds. when we talk about the number of households, remember that not all households are families and not all family households contain children. ami is area median income. when we talk about area median income, we will be using as our example, a family of three.
this gives you a general idea, talking about media then come at 100% -- median income at 100%. for a family of three, it would be glad to 2007 hundred dollars. -- $92,700. that income and other districts would seem relatively high. in san francisco when i talk about homeownership prices, it is a very different story. let's talk about the change in households with and without children. you will see the number of households with children was about 63,867 back in 2000. in 2010, it remained relatively constant, it went down slightly to 63,577. you can see the number of households without children
increased. it means that in 2000, a little over 19% of households were with children. it went down by about 1% over the past 10 years, we are down to 18%. supervisor farrell: just so i can extrapolate off of those numbers, the number of households with children have stayed constant, but the children i assueme 0-18 -- >> the percentage remained relatively constant, but the number of children overall has decreased. perhaps households are having fewer children, or perhaps it is the same household. if they are not moving out of the city but the children of aging out, it's not being counted. supervisor farrell: thank you. >> back to powerpoint.
if we can go back to the slides. all right. so even though the number of households with children has remained constant over the past 10 years, there has been a change in the composition of those households with children. we found that this was very interesting. we have seen over the past 20 years, the relative percentage has decreased in terms of very low households, moderates ,low,. the most dramatic increase has been in those households that have ami of 150% or more. while the overall number of households has remained constant, no. of households --
the number of households with extremely high in come has got up with a decrease in households with lower income. it is looking very different in 2010 that was in 1990. president chiu: you have any color versions of this? it is a little hard for us to see the data. >> it is technically in color on the screen, but you can see -- it is a little bit harder reed. you can see in the middle. the line that goes up is upper income. the next line down is very low. in 1990, the very low population that was 0-50% was the highest percentage of households with families that has gone down. moderate-income has gone down,
low-income has gone down. upper income has gone dramatically up. president chiu: i think this chart tells a really important story, this is really the tale of two families or the tail of many families and sent francisco, right? >> you will see on the next slide -- can we go back to the slide? so let's compare that to relative growth in households overall. households with families, these are overall households. you can see there the upper- income households increased, while the rest remained relatively flat or decreased slightly. over all, very low income households have increased as a
percentage in the past 20 years, but very low income households with children have decreased. it is a little bit tricky to figure out what that means. white in san francisco is it's still a place where low income households in general come to live. but it seems low income households with children do not have the same incentive to stay in san francisco as overall low income households composed entirely of adults. it is hard to know exactly what to draw from this, but it was a dramatic difference. >> de look at these charts relative to other cities? san francisco is obviously a -- and expensive place to live. the other areas have similar
trends we can look at? it will never be apples to apples. >> the only comparison we have done so far is look at cities and overall number of children. we have not done a family analysis. but you look at the number of children as a proxy. in san francisco, 13.4% of our overall residents are children. we are at 13.4%. seattle is at 15.4%. boston is at 16.8%. portland is at 19.1%. chicago is at 23%. san jose is at 25%. other cities that are geographically close to us or have high cost of living all have a higher percentage of children and san francisco does. chairperson farrell: but we do not have friends in terms of income households? >>